Document Reference:
LF000005-MOM-313
Marine Mammals Monitoring and Mitigation
Page 1 of 6
Meeting Minutes
Meeting Title: Marine Mammals Monitoring and Mitigation
Date / Time / Venue: 30/03/15, 1.30-4 pm, Marine Lab, Marine Scotland, Aberdeen
Attendees: MS-LOT: Alexander Ford (AF); MSS: Robert Main (RM), Ian Davies (ID), Kate Brookes
(KB); SNH: Erica Knott (EK), Catriona Gall (CG), Fiona Manson (FM), Karen Hall (KH-SNH) (on video
conference); JNCC: Enrique Pardo (EP), Karen Hall (KH-JNCC), Sonia Mendes (SM); WDC: Sarah
Dolman (SD) (on teleconference); BOWL: Lis Royle (LR), Elizabeth Reynolds (ER), Jonathan Wilson
(JW), Tom McGuiness (TM), Martin Shaw (MS); RPS: Tessa McGarry (TMG); MORL: Sarah Pirie
(SP), Catarina Rei (CR), Edward Maycock (EM), Royal Haskoning: Benjamin King (BK); UoA: Paul
Thompson (PT).
Apologies: N/A
Minutes taken by: Tessa McGarry (TMG)
Item
Agenda Item
0.0
Actions Agreed
 PT/ BOWL/ MORL to re-assess effects from injury with refined project parameters
to test effects on populations without mitigation being implemented.
 SNCBs to provide further guidance on the acceptability of alternative mitigation
measures utilising ADDs and soft start as an alternative to JNCC guidelines.
 MSS to provide update on likely publishing timescales for the SMRU report on
ADD trials in the Moray Firth.
 SNCBs to provide written comments on the BOWL and MORL construction
MMMP.
2.0
Purpose of Meeting
JW stated that the purpose is two-fold;
 to discuss the Moray Firth offshore wind farms with respect to outlining an
approach to piling strategy (PS) to mitigate impacts on marine mammals.
 to provide an overview of the proposed construction and post-construction MMMP
BOWL’s first Investment contract milestone is in March 2016. In order to meet this
milestone BOWL must complete its Final Investment Decision (FID) by January 2016. The
due diligence process with the banks will commence in August 2015 and end October
2015. It is essential that the PS is agreed prior to end October 2015 in order to sufficiently
de-risk the project ahead of the final investment launch to the banks and FID.
SP noted that MORL are working to similar timescales. The next window for Contract for
Difference (CfD) bids is currently scheduled for October 2015, subject to confirmation from
the next government. The PS has a significant impact on CAPEX which will be a key
consideration in MORL’s bid and therefore there is a need to ensure the project is
competitive in a UK context.
3.0
LF000005-MOM-313
Piling activities – overview of sequencing of activities, schedule and technical
challenges
Document Reference:
LF000005-MOM-313
Marine Mammals Monitoring and Mitigation
Page 2 of 6
JW highlighted that the BOWL project entered the front end engineering design (FEED)
stage in Q4 2014 which involves significant engineering work / studies to confirm key
project parameters. E.g. the original application considered installation of up to 277
turbines, but now the project design specifies 86. The piling operation for BOWL is likely to
occur over 2 years (April – Sept). The ES assessed 3 years of continuous piling. In terms
of understanding ground conditions – over 50% of borehole assessments have been
completed. The pile driving energy is likely to be between 1200 – 1800 kJ across the
majority of the site but BOWL cannot confirm maximum energy until the remaining of the
geotechnical investigation is completed. The maximum hammer energy assessed in the
ES was 2300 kJ.
CR stated that MORL is in a slightly different position. MORL are working towards the
next CfD application so detailed project information is not currently available. MORL have
undertaken the first phase of their geotech campaign on site. MORL are likely to build the
Eastern Development Area (i.e. the three consented wind farms) through a phased
approach although it is not possible to say what the phasing will be yet. It is likely that
shallower areas developed first due to costs of developing deeper waters.
ID queried if ‘phasing’ would mean build one phase and then build another phase.
CR replied that MORL cannot give any certainty on this yet until award of CfD.
SP noted that MORL will need to develop the most competitive project that is economically
favourable with a high energy output. Economic drivers will be the key behind developing
the bid.
EM highlighted that MORL will consider as a starting point the project considered for the
previous CfD application and how it can be improved.
JW – BOWL and MORL are aligned on the approach to the piling mitigation strategy even
though timing of the projects and the delivery of the Piling Strategies are slightly different.
Presentation from BOWL and MORL engineers on the methods and engineering
requirements of pile-driving operations:
TM/MS – showed a short film demonstrating the key activities associated with pile-driving
operations, including vessel set-up, deployment of a pile installation frame, and pile-driving
itself.
TM/ MS/ EM presented the engineering approach to piling including description of
equipment used, understanding installation process, example of pile driving energy profile,
example of piling operational sequence and durations, different options for piling and
jacket installation campaign, potential for use of relief drilling. (see presentation document
attached with these minutes).
TM/MS/EM explained that breaks in pile driving can occur due to a number of reasons,
whether planned or unplanned, and the engineering consequences can also vary e.g.
pauses could lead to longer piling duration and the requirement for higher hammer energy
to ‘get the pile moving’ due to soil consolidation. The ideal is to minimise the blow energy
whilst maintaining a consistent drive rate, in order to reduce fatigue damage to the pile
and reduce wear and failure rate of driving tools. There is a strong incentive to not delay
piling from both engineering and ecological perspective.
LF000005-MOM-313
Document Reference:
LF000005-MOM-313
Marine Mammals Monitoring and Mitigation
Page 3 of 6
The programme impact of increased piling durations was explained in the context of
developers requiring to identify mitigation measures that do not cause significant delays to
construction programmes. Delays in piling activities could delay construction into periods
of sub-optimal weather therefore leading to longer durations of downtime. Ultimately this
will delay the overall piling campaign and lead to potentially longer piling programmes, or
result in the requirement for a second vessel (i.e. increase in spatial extent of noise over
same period).
KB and EK queried about ‘weather sensitive’ operations during piling activities. EM
replied that the main ‘weather sensitive’ operation was whilst lifting the pile prior to pile
driving.
4.0
Marine mammal mitigation
PT presented an outline on the BOWL and MORL position on piling mitigation measures
for marine mammals in the Moray Firth. PT noted that the JNCC guidelines are draft
guidelines, and state that an alternative protocol can be suggested as mitigation as long
as developers demonstrate that can be effective. The effectiveness of the current
guidelines can be questioned in that methods of detection of marine mammals by MMOs
are not effective and that currently there is reluctance to investigate more efficient
alternative options due to confidence in the guidelines. Instead mitigation should consider
local conditions (i.e. the Moray Firth for the MORL and BOWL projects). The key species
are bottlenose dolphin and harbour seals but there are also high densities of harbour
porpoise and this has implications for engineering schedule. As concluded in the BOWL
and MORL ESs the key focus for mitigation is to minimise risk of death or injury. For the
marine mammal species that the projects are required to mitigate for, this zone is <40 m.
Evidence from other studies e.g. Moray Firth (MF) ports and harbours work show limited
evidence for displacement of Bottlenose Dolphins (BND). There is, however, an
appreciation that the mitigation design needs to be ‘fit-for-purpose’. PT further outlined
proposed site-specific mitigation using Acoustic Deterrent Devices (ADDs) and soft start
(minimum energy at the start of piling driving) with a mitigation zone determined by injury
criteria. PT provided an overview of ADD technology; with Lofitech highlighted as a tried
and tested device that could be useful for both HP and harbour seal, as published data
provides evidence of this. PT outlined the implications of fully complying with JNCC
guidelines in the Moray Firth; including the risk of delays that could lead to longer piling
campaigns, requirement for a higher hammer energy due to pile consolidation after
breaks, and increased likelihood of simultaneous piling (spatial extent of noise
disturbance).
Discussion progressed on the presentation provided.
KH-JNCC noted that there are limitations to MMOs and PAM but that they are practical
way to reduce risk to marine mammals and suggested that there may be areas for
improvement. There are issues with testing the effectiveness of the current mitigation
guidelines however JNCC are trying to investigate this. The guidelines are a starting
point. The key concern is that ADDs have not been used on its own without PAM and
MMOs as mitigation before. The ORJIP programme is also considering the effectiveness
of ADDs.
LF000005-MOM-313
Document Reference:
LF000005-MOM-313
Marine Mammals Monitoring and Mitigation
Page 4 of 6
PT noted that TTS and PTS were assessed conservatively in the ESs (and regarded as
acceptable effects) and that if the intention is to mitigate PTS then the mitigation zone
would be several kms which could not be mitigated with MMOs and PAM (using the
current JNCC guidelines).
EK highlighted that the JNCC guidelines allow for development of a new approach to
mitigation. Who is expected to pick up on this? There is also a need to consider the
current draft HP SACs proposals. The conservation objectives will be different in case of a
designation in the Moray Firth so there would need to be a clear understanding of the
effects of piling on the HP population.
ID highlighted that there are currently no details available on the proposed HP draft SACs
and therefore no coherent view on population effects. There is a map of dSACs being
considered but it has not been published yet. MSS are open to discussions on the draft
SAC proposals.
PT noted that MORL/BOWL/UoA haven’t seen the map of proposed HP dSACs so advice
on the current draft proposals is required quickly. The new version of MMMP has been
changed to test effectiveness of ADDs so should answer some of the concerns.
SP stated that MORL would value some guidance as soon as possible as the ORJIP
timeline is currently uncertain and developers require to de-risk the projects this year
through the submission of project’s Piling Strategies.
KH –JNCC mentioned that JNCC are keen to consider alternative mitigation measures but
that the proposed mitigation is very different to what is in the guidelines which is a key risk.
The developers will need to look at reducing this risk. The timelines presented for BOWL
and MORL suggest that projects will be piling for a number of years so even if alternative
mitigation is not instigated in the first year, there is still time to test mitigation measures to
use later. Is there potential for Dogger Bank to test this? Can results of ORJIP be applied
to Moray Firth?
PT- highlighted that the results from ORJIP will not be useful for BOWL’s timelines, but
could be of use to MORL (depending on MORL’s construction programme and ORJIP
delivery timescales). PT added that one device (Lofitech) had been tested in the Moray
Firth recently by SMRU (MS commissioned report) and asked MSS for an update on
publishing timescales.
KB mentioned that the SMRU report is still under review.
SD noted that species diversity is different in different parts of the UK so what works in
one area may not work in another area. A report by P. Lepper shows that ADDs
themselves could cause injury.
EK stated that these questions will need to be raised with ORJIP. There will need to be
more consideration and justification about worst case in the ESs and most likely scenario.
By reducing all impacts it is not clear as to population consequences.
PT noted that it is a concern if developers are expected to test the effectiveness of ADDs.
Due to the more refined project descriptions (fewer turbines, shorter pile-driving
programmes etc.) the population consequences of pile-driving will be lower than that
assessed in the ESs. The key question is whether developers can use ADDs as
LF000005-MOM-313
Document Reference:
LF000005-MOM-313
Marine Mammals Monitoring and Mitigation
Page 5 of 6
mitigation. Given the key receptors are seals, the limitations of MMO/PAM, could
seriously constrain opportunities to pile at night.
LR/SP highlighted that developers need to able to pile at all times when the weather
permits (i.e. day and night).
ID enquired what the circumstances are in which developers can pile at night.
KH-JNCC highlighted that other wind farm developments have been allowed to pile at
night. The tool currently available to use is PAM, however in the Moray Firth developers
are required to consider harbour seals and therefore there is a need for a combination of
PAM and ADD.
EK noted that if SNCBs approved mitigation that is not effective there could be population
consequences. Developers are required to think about the issues raised.
ID stated that the SNCBs should come up with goal posts/targets.
PT confirmed that the BOWL and MORL developments are at a stage where it will be
challenging, if not impossible to fully confirm that ADDs are more effective than the current
JNCC guidelines. Therefore, the only alternative approach may be for BOWL and MORL
to re-assess impacts based on refined design envelopes to ascertain if there is any
significant risk to populations if ADD mitigation does not work.
ACTIONS:



5.0
PT/ BOWL/ MORL to re-assess effects from injury with refined project parameters
to test effects on populations without mitigation being implemented.
SNCBs to provide further guidance on the acceptability of alternative mitigation
measures utilising ADDs and soft start as an alternative to JNCC guidelines.
MSS to provide update on likely publishing timescales for the SMRU report on
ADD trials in the Moray Firth.
Approach to development of Piling Strategy document
JW outlined contents of what would be included within the BOWL PS document, including
the predicted hammer energies to be used across the site based on soil conditions at each
WTG location. The PS will present information in line with the consent condition (method,
duration, soft start procedure, max energy). PS will also re-visit the assessment of effects
based on reduced pile diameter (PD) and updated piling details. Finally will present
mitigation and associated monitoring in line with the PS (with cross references to the EMP
and PEMP).
CR noted that MORL is undertaking a pile drivability study and will present anticipated
maximum hammer energies and piling durations in zones across their sites based on the
different ground conditions.
6.0
MORL and BOWL construction and post-construction MMMP
PT outlined the proposed construction MMMP for BOWL and MORL. High priority species
are still harbour seal and bottlenose dolphin with, harbour porpoise as a medium priority
LF000005-MOM-313
Document Reference:
LF000005-MOM-313
Marine Mammals Monitoring and Mitigation
Page 6 of 6
species. Certain studies in the pre-construction MMMP will be repeated during
construction. In addition to this, WP3 will focus on the monitoring of responses of harbour
seal and harbour porpoises to alternative mitigation (ADD and soft starts).
KB agreed that the programme covers the Moray Firth suitably and highlighted that the
key species for the East coast is BND.
PT highlighted that the programme can support the integration of east coast data
(collected in Forth and Tay) with the MF data.
ACTIONS:
 SNCBs to provide written comments on the BOWL and MORL construction
MMMP.
7.0
Update on results of pre-construction MMMP and ongoing strategic work
PT provided an update on pre-construction monitoring since December 2014. 13 seals
were successfully tagged in February. Further C-POD data has been collected and winter
seal counts have been completed. There is limited use of tagged seals of the BOWL and
MORL sites. One individual has been tracked to Orkney.
9.0
Next Steps and AOB
ID re-iterated the key actions:
 PT/ BOWL/ MORL to re-assess effects from injury with refined project parameters
to test effects on populations without mitigation being implemented.
 SNCBs to provide further guidance on the acceptability of alternative mitigation
measures utilising ADDs and soft start as an alternative to JNCC guidelines.
 MSS to provide update on likely publishing timescales for the SMRU report on
ADD trials in the Moray Firth.
 SNCBs to provide written comments on the BOWL and MORL construction
MMMP.
LF000005-MOM-313